[ej3]

Honestly I've always shared a perspective much like this until yesterday someone mentioned that through the stimulus (I'm not sure of the figures, but what I roughly recall is) each citizen gets $1200 they're then taxed on, and companies get the balance as an interest free loan. If the balance of the stimulus had been simply evenly distributed to individuals, everyone would have received nearly $10,000.

I can't imagine what would happen if you gave every citizen 10k. I would think there would likely be something akin to a revolution that may or may not result in a more robust economy. What the gov't is doing by giving so much money to existing companies that have already failed vs individuals with the possibility of failing is very much protecting the existing social structure of society.

Corporations like these are a hierarchy that generate implicit social striations in our society. By maintaining this regardless of the fundamental success of the product or competence of the management, they act only to preserve the class structure enforced by the institution and thus the stability of society in a configuration with marginal utility as regards productivity.

They're clearly ensuring their own future.

[abakker]

competition == unemployment. corporate failure == unemployment. innovation == unemployment.

Maybe all in the short term, but, this stimulus is specifically looking to avoid short-term discontinuities.

That said, I'm a big fan of corporate stress tests and capital buffers as well. I'm not a fan of debt-fueled share buybacks, but, I understand them as a response to a system that allows them.

[ej3]

do you really think it's likely that they can avoid short term discontinuities in this context? Maybe we should be looking farther ahead?

[hanley]

> each citizen gets $1200 they're then taxed on

The $1200 that people are getting is tax-free.

[jonnycoder]

Jordan Peterson makes a clear point about how the right is for stable hierarchies but they can destabilize and become corrupt, and that's where the left comes in to balance them. Wanting to see the best doctor if you get cancer or seeking out the best construction worker to remodel your kitchen IS a hierarchy and it's a good thing.

[ej3]

I'm not sure I completely understand your comment, but I think hierarchy is a structure that is useful for a society when the exchange of information is naturally constricted. Accreditation, status and authority are strong signals in a setting with limited bandwidth, but when communication becomes more robust.. it's more attainable to construct a heuristic to find utility unique to a specific instance or situation. Aspects of what I think represents the best cancer Dr may not jive with what you think the best cancer Dr is (locality? alternative medicine? cost vs probable outcome?)

Hierarchies are still important, but now they're just training wheels in many instances.